Comment on Anarcho-Capitalist Unite by depthsofspace
I don't see what's inherently wrong with hierarchy, so many of them are unavoidable. Professionals and laymen, parents and children, teachers and students, experienced and unexperienced; life to me seems pretty much full of hierarchy. The only hierarchies I've seen be actually destructive are involuntary, which capitalist hierarchies are not. Nobody is forced to work at gunpoint, let alone for anyone specific. Reality sort of forces you to work if you want a certain standard of living, and while you can call that systemically unfair you're still left without a good example of a non-capitalistic market producing the kind of wealth we're used to even in chaotic state capitalism. If you would like to cite an example I'd be curious, and perhaps also concerning what happened in Iceland.
Now, to say that the owners of the means of production make no contribution is not true. In a capitalist system they are the ones who make production possible by bringing together the desperate interests and people and knowledge needed to perform a task. They work to get investment, they work to fill positions. Even the people who simply provide the money that makes it possible cannot be said to have not contributed; they've made it possible! The reason they cough up to make it possible is for a return on their investment, and this incentive has proven to be a wonderful driver of economies; it's the reason almost anyone has work today. I'm all for alternative ways of doing things. I'd love to think that if in a stateless society the communists or syndicalist communities began to be more prosperous and happy I'd jump right on board, but at the moment you cannot deny the success of capitalism in making people in all classes vastly more wealthy.
Finally, mutualism is something I don't know much about; I think I've read one critique, but if it was accurate then I don't like it one bit. I don't think you can argue that any conception of property rights that isn't based on each individual's absolute responsibility for their actions is ethical or practical. From what I read, if a man rents out an apartment in mutualist system the tenant can decide to claim it as his own at any time, which would of course be theft if the landlord did not agree. If human beings are responsible for their actions then they are responsible for the effects of those actions including the produce of their labor. What constitutes that produce and what is to be compensated for is up to the parties involved to agree upon. Anything else seems truly unfair to me.
Now, to say that the owners of the means of production make no contribution is not true. In a capitalist system they are the ones who make production possible by bringing together the desperate interests and people and knowledge needed to perform a task. They work to get investment, they work to fill positions. Even the people who simply provide the money that makes it possible cannot be said to have not contributed; they've made it possible! The reason they cough up to make it possible is for a return on their investment, and this incentive has proven to be a wonderful driver of economies; it's the reason almost anyone has work today. I'm all for alternative ways of doing things. I'd love to think that if in a stateless society the communists or syndicalist communities began to be more prosperous and happy I'd jump right on board, but at the moment you cannot deny the success of capitalism in making people in all classes vastly more wealthy.
Finally, mutualism is something I don't know much about; I think I've read one critique, but if it was accurate then I don't like it one bit. I don't think you can argue that any conception of property rights that isn't based on each individual's absolute responsibility for their actions is ethical or practical. From what I read, if a man rents out an apartment in mutualist system the tenant can decide to claim it as his own at any time, which would of course be theft if the landlord did not agree. If human beings are responsible for their actions then they are responsible for the effects of those actions including the produce of their labor. What constitutes that produce and what is to be compensated for is up to the parties involved to agree upon. Anything else seems truly unfair to me.
"I don't see what's inherently wrong about hierarchy"
Then you aren't an anarchist. Anarchism literally means, 'without hierarchy'. You can't support one person effectively owning another person, having the right to boss them around, and be an anarchist. That isn't how it works.
A non-capitalist market would be mutualism. It hasn't happened yet because we haven't had a successful anarchist revolution. If I were a reactionary (for example, an 'an'-cap), I would be bound by precedent. I am not.
Iceland was a Scandinavian nation. They kept slaves. It's not that hard to find out.
Actually, I CAN deny the success of capitalism in making people of all classes vastly more wealthy. That's why we have an underclass. Capitalism isn't making them vastly more wealthy, because they are dispossessed and unemployed. Often, you're poor even if you DO work. And, although everyone is contributing (though the workers are the ones doing all the actual labor), the ones who own and invest seem to be the ones reaping most of the benefits of everyone else's labor. Now, I never claimed the capitalist did nothing. I claimed that he exploited the workers, and that this exploitation was more exploitative than the results of mutualism. Your defense of capitalists reads like a chicago school textbook, with the same classist, asinine assumptions that the capitalist class is some sort of special club made up all the motivated, strappy workers who boldly invested and steered their business to success. The truth is, most of the wealthiest people are the children of wealthy people, born into ownership. Many contribute literally nothing, not even their 'executive leadership' (actually, most companies hire someone else to do this, so quite a few capitalists contribute literally nothing). You need to pull the wool from your eyes and look at the real world.
As for mutualism, it is only theft under your view of property. Under the view of property used by mutualists and all other types of anarchist, your view of property is systemic theft of a worse degree, so we'd much prefer our property system. And, since our property systems can't coexist, and since your property system entails hierarchy, we as anarchists condemn your property system.
Then you aren't an anarchist. Anarchism literally means, 'without hierarchy'. You can't support one person effectively owning another person, having the right to boss them around, and be an anarchist. That isn't how it works.
A non-capitalist market would be mutualism. It hasn't happened yet because we haven't had a successful anarchist revolution. If I were a reactionary (for example, an 'an'-cap), I would be bound by precedent. I am not.
Iceland was a Scandinavian nation. They kept slaves. It's not that hard to find out.
Actually, I CAN deny the success of capitalism in making people of all classes vastly more wealthy. That's why we have an underclass. Capitalism isn't making them vastly more wealthy, because they are dispossessed and unemployed. Often, you're poor even if you DO work. And, although everyone is contributing (though the workers are the ones doing all the actual labor), the ones who own and invest seem to be the ones reaping most of the benefits of everyone else's labor. Now, I never claimed the capitalist did nothing. I claimed that he exploited the workers, and that this exploitation was more exploitative than the results of mutualism. Your defense of capitalists reads like a chicago school textbook, with the same classist, asinine assumptions that the capitalist class is some sort of special club made up all the motivated, strappy workers who boldly invested and steered their business to success. The truth is, most of the wealthiest people are the children of wealthy people, born into ownership. Many contribute literally nothing, not even their 'executive leadership' (actually, most companies hire someone else to do this, so quite a few capitalists contribute literally nothing). You need to pull the wool from your eyes and look at the real world.
As for mutualism, it is only theft under your view of property. Under the view of property used by mutualists and all other types of anarchist, your view of property is systemic theft of a worse degree, so we'd much prefer our property system. And, since our property systems can't coexist, and since your property system entails hierarchy, we as anarchists condemn your property system.
Anarchism isn't about hierarchy. It's about the abolition of government- a powerful social order can still exist.
Except for the part where it's absolutely and totally about hierarchy, and the abolition of hierarchy. You can't just co-opt people's movements.
Technically, ALL anarchism in it's purest state and ignoring all of it's form (anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism, etc.) just wants abolition of government. The social ladder, while would most likely be completely destroyed in the long run can still exist. However, even those at the very top aren't guaranteed to be the government, if that is assured then their is anarchy.
False. Again, you cannot redefine an entire social movement to support something it has always opposed. Anarchists oppose hierarchy. This is the basic fact of anarchism. Any and every system of hierarchy is opposed by anarchists. There are no exceptions. You are thinking like a classical liberal, not an anarchist. Anarchism does not endorse a 'meritocracy' where those who gain property are empowered over others. Anarchism endorses anarchy. The absence of hierarchy. A social order based on topless federation. To pretend that anarchism supports the lack of the State but endorses hierarchy is tantamount to saying that Communism supports the lack of the bourgeois but is alright with feudalism. Again, you can't just redefine words and ignore the entire works and history of a major social movement so you can endorse the form of privilege and hierarchy that you like and still call yourself an anarchist. If you support hierarchy, you are not an anarchist. There are no exceptions.
"Then you aren't an anarchist. Anarchism literally means, 'without hierarchy'. You can't support one person effectively owning another person, having the right to boss them around, and be an anarchist. That isn't how it works."
Anarchy means 'without rulers' by definition. I don't give a piss about the semantics. You're an idiot if you think hierarchy means human ownership by default. You can't have a world without authority. There will always be people who know more or who have more than others, and that's all it takes to constitute a hierarchy. A hierarchy exists between my doctor and me, and there's nothing evil about that relationship. Hierarchy is a part of life and will never go away. For the sake of your integrity I hope you don't advocate the use of violence, because that creates the most lopsided hierarchy imaginable, the guy with the gun and the guy without.
"Iceland was a Scandinavian nation. They kept slaves. It's not that hard to find out."
And yet you can't tell me a think about what happened there concerning unsubsidized slavery. Now I define slavery has literally forced labor. If you think you're enslaved when there's no gun or club to actually make you do the work without pay, then you're a pussy. By my definition humans make terrible slaves, unless of course they believe they're free; that's what governments are for. You cannot site a notable example of private slavery because it doesn't happen; it isn't profitable.
Your rhetoric is anachronistic. I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that the state, with all it's twisted, micromanaging, money-grubbing evil might be a huge player in economic affairs, manipulating and distorting market forces. The state's ends are, of course, the ends of the rich people who always control the state. Of there's an underclass. They created it through the state, through welfare and public schooling. Of course the rich are people too, people as corruptible as us all, but they're powerless to do the kind of evil things they do without the state to make us pay for it. And even so, this half-assed attempt at capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. You deny this because you are dishonest. Your insistence that contributing money is contributing nothing is childishly simpleminded.
Anarchy means 'without rulers' by definition. I don't give a piss about the semantics. You're an idiot if you think hierarchy means human ownership by default. You can't have a world without authority. There will always be people who know more or who have more than others, and that's all it takes to constitute a hierarchy. A hierarchy exists between my doctor and me, and there's nothing evil about that relationship. Hierarchy is a part of life and will never go away. For the sake of your integrity I hope you don't advocate the use of violence, because that creates the most lopsided hierarchy imaginable, the guy with the gun and the guy without.
"Iceland was a Scandinavian nation. They kept slaves. It's not that hard to find out."
And yet you can't tell me a think about what happened there concerning unsubsidized slavery. Now I define slavery has literally forced labor. If you think you're enslaved when there's no gun or club to actually make you do the work without pay, then you're a pussy. By my definition humans make terrible slaves, unless of course they believe they're free; that's what governments are for. You cannot site a notable example of private slavery because it doesn't happen; it isn't profitable.
Your rhetoric is anachronistic. I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that the state, with all it's twisted, micromanaging, money-grubbing evil might be a huge player in economic affairs, manipulating and distorting market forces. The state's ends are, of course, the ends of the rich people who always control the state. Of there's an underclass. They created it through the state, through welfare and public schooling. Of course the rich are people too, people as corruptible as us all, but they're powerless to do the kind of evil things they do without the state to make us pay for it. And even so, this half-assed attempt at capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. You deny this because you are dishonest. Your insistence that contributing money is contributing nothing is childishly simpleminded.